Saturday, June 24, 2006

Let's Talk, Sir

-An Open Letter To Congressman Murtha

Dear Mr. Murtha,

I've had it. I've had enough sanctimonious hyperbole from you. This has been boiling inside of me for weeks and weeks now. As a retired Marine, I have to speak-up... or my conscience will not let me rest. I've been hoping against hope that you would wake-up and stop the dangerous nonsense... but I know now how foolish that was.

You are badly damaging our military's effectiveness with your irresponsible and completely false rantings. You have become one of the key "useful idiots" that our enemy relies upon for assistance. You are now standing on the same moral and intellectual ground as Cindy Sheehan and that mountainous pile of anti-Americanism, Michael Moore.

Does this bother you? Does it worry you that most sane people think you are completely unhinged? That you have sold out your country's security for cheap political points? That you, as someone who used to wear a Marine Corps uniform, have made a complete mockery of "Semper Fidelis?"

I guess the Marine Corps part is the primary reason for me writing this. There are plenty of far-left people out there undermining our national security- and I could have chosen any of them for a letter like this... but the fact that you were once a Marine is the one thing I just cannot get over. I can't believe that you have said the things you have said about Marines. I am stunned that you could not give Marines the benefit of waiting until charges were investigated before you accused them of abhorrent atrocities.

Immediately and without hesitation, you took the side of our enemy and condemned those Marines... and by doing so, you have emboldened and strengthened the terrorists' cause. To me, that is worse than treason... it is betrayal of a very personal kind. How many Marines and soldiers will now be killed because of the new power you gave the terrorists? How many of America's enemies are celebrating with orgiastic glee the Congressman calling American Marines murderers?

Don't get me wrong, Sir- your behavior is not unprecedented. In my career, I saw several examples of what we call "Semper I." Do you remember "Semper I?" It is the exact opposite of "Semper Fi." It is the rare case where a Marine puts himself first- and the hell with his fellow warriors. "Semper I" is the sad reality of human nature... where even the deeper-than-blood-level connection that Marines share cannot overcome a basic flaw in some people. I've seen it before, and I'm seeing it now in you. Your political ambitions- and years of extreme liberal brainwashing- have brought you to moral ruin.

The worst part of it all in your case, though, is that the rest of the deranged far left have grasped onto your betrayal and found new strength in it- as have our enemies. They cite your "war hero" background as proof that your opinions are infallible. Around the world, America's detractors and enemies are seeing our very own media celebrate your "maverick" behavior. Honestly, Sir... how does that make you feel?

I'm sure you remember one of our Corps' most famous moments- when Gunnery Sergeant Dan Daly inspired his men into a no-win firefight with the words, "Come on, you SOB's! You want to live forever?" They answered with a resounding "No" through their actions... they went with him and, in spite of suffering horrendous casualties, they defeated the enemy. No one second-guessed his decision... no one criticized the Marines' actions.

That was World War I - the battle of Belleau Wood. We won that war.

Forget for a moment the fact that your far-left friends of today would crucify this legendary leader for such comments and behavior. Forget that many mistakes were made at all levels of the chain-of-command in that war- and every other war.

Let's just remember that Marines stick together... even when charging into the depths of hell. We do not sell out our fellow Marines. Ever.

You, Sir, have done just that. You have sold out not only the Marines involved in this particular incident- but all the rest of us, as well. You have told the world that Marines are deserving of no due-process because they are just blood-thirsty killers. You have made people believe all the false crap that the anti-American crowd has been trying to pin on us since Vietnam.

Your mistake cannot be excused as just the ramblings of an aging liberal politician. There is too much riding on the title you used to hold... that of Marine. The anti-everything crowd uses your past like a shield of invulnerability- as if you speak the total and complete truth since you used to be one of us. You make it appear that this is how any Marine would feel. Your betrayal is far, far more dangerous than that of other anti-American liberals.

All you had to do, Sir, was say "Let's wait until a full investigation is conducted." That's it. All you had to do was hold your tongue until we all know exactly what happened and who, if anyone, is to blame. The political gain, though, was too tempting... and so you stuck a giant knife in the back of our Corps... and then continued twisting it.

You then compound the betrayal of those Marines by saying things like "There is no way we can win (this war) militarily..." What kind of thing is that to say? Seriously... how completely far-gone do you have to be to say that? Have you asked yourself what Dan Daly would think of that statement? How about Presley O'Bannon... and Sergeant Jarred L. Adams... and Chesty Puller? Do you think they would approve of the things you are saying?

Most of us Marines try to hold ourselves up to the icons of our history... we use them as a measuring stick for our own performance. More than anything, Marines fear not living up to our predecessors. One thing that has always separated us from everyone else is that we do not forget our history... the honor and bravery of those Marines who came before us is the fuel that feeds our Corps.

With all due respect, Sir, you have become a dangerous fool. You have shamed the United States Marine Corps, and endangered countless lives- not to mention the damage done to our mission.

Play politics all you want... attack your political opponents as you see fit... but, for God's sake, leave the Marine Corps out of your politics. On behalf of the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen serving our country now... please stop attacking our military and shut the hell up.

138 Comments:

You're not only a stud, but you have quite a way with words! Thank you for beautifully articulating what so many of us Devil Dogs feel. If you haven't already, please consider signing the roll call at this site for veterans supporting EX-Marine Murtha's opponent - Diana Irey.

I'm an Army Infantry Vet, RVN 5/69--7/70 and murtha has outraged me. I CAN'T IMAGINE THE OUTRAGE ALL MARINES MUST BE FEELING. I have a lot of Vet buddies who are Marines(since there are NO ex-Marines)and they are stunned. They don't know what to say or how to say it--this behavior was not in their training.You, my Brother, have said it all.It won't change him, but you got it off your chest and I'm sending this to my "book", especially for my Marine buddies.God Bless You,Your Comrade-in-Arms and Brother,Recon Denny

Thanks for the awesome letter and the history lesson, Gunny! The pride that your brother and sister Marines deservedly carry in the best tradition of the Corps is surely the reason there aren't many Murthas out there.

Go for it Gunny! Murtha falls in to the category of an "ex-Marine," one who forgets what our brotherhood is all about, mocks our traditions, and shames the memories of all the good Marines past, present and future.MasterGunny

Wow, having worked on both the war fighter and the political sides of the fence, I commend you for what you have written. As a CWO in the Marine Corps, I have seen a lot, to include working with the detainees and I can tell you that our enemy is a rare bunch and our Marines/Service members are blessings to not only America, but the world as a whole. To serve your country today entails so much more than just being able to fire a weapon; it demands intelligence and perseverance. Perseverance not only against the enemy, but against political walls right here at home as well. I will continue to fight for our Marines, my family, and after reading your letter, I know that our voice is continuing to gain volume. We are being heard and soon they will no longer be able to ignore and they will have to face their conscience.

Here's an article that needs to get read on that very same topic. Furthermore, as our unit gets ready to play in the sandbox...I have to wonder...will us responding to attacks end up getting us sold out like the Haditha Marines

I read the well thought out, eigth-grade level postings you linked to, and I understand that you would like to turn this into just another "Bush lied... Bush evil... America sucks" issue-- but try to use what's left of your mind to stay focused, okay?

This posting of mine was about one thing. It wasn't "smearing" or attacking Murtha for ABSCAM or anything else. Just to remind you, here's how it closed:

" Play politics all you want... attack your political opponents as you see fit... but, for God's sake, leave the Marine Corps out of your politics. On behalf of the Marines, soldiers, sailors, and airmen serving our country now... please stop attacking our military and shut the hell up."

This is about Honor. It is about the strength of a brotherhood that you could never, ever understand. Finally, it is about simple justice... and giving our Marines the same presumption of innocence that your kind insists the terrorists receive.

In the crayon-etched postings that you linked to, you called me a hypocrite- then said I was smearing "another veteran." Let's review: the "veteran" in question is the one who smeared those Marines. Get it? That's what the posting was about in the first place.

It's funny how your ilk loves veterans so much. Certain veterans. What is the criteria for you to like a veteran? Oh, that's right... they have to display copious amounts of Bush derangement syndrome, and they have to vigorously oppose any and all military interventions (except those conducted by a liberal administration).

Hypocrite, indeed. I don't think that word means what you think it means, little troll. For a better definition of it, you should look in a mirror.

Thanks for stopping by, I hope you found this lesson helpful. Good luck starting high school this fall.

Well the first link was incorrect. I was supposed to be thishttp://forums.salem.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=45352747

but like most right-wing drivel yours is littered with irony but of course like most right-wingers the irony would be lost on that thick right-wing skull of yours. As is typical of your ilk what you accuse your detractors of perfectly describes you. It does not matter that YOU CLAIM murtha is playing politics. You are using that as cover to engage in your own political character assassination of murtha. Yes you can deny it all you want but the fact that you would link to the notorious right-wing republican site of frontpage clearly shows this.

On the first part of my response, that I mixed up with abscam link, I say " Yes murtha probably should have not jumped the gun as soon as he did on those marines but we don't know what he saw but the notion that your post has anything to do with his comments on haditha is complete BS. Look at everything you have wrote here? its clear you are a partisian hitman." And you DID smear him in numerous ways such as you linking to a page titled " "Osama's Congressman," which shows that you condone that title describing murtha or you would not linked to it. Assuming Murtha did smear SOME marines does not absolve YOU of the fact that you DID smear murtha and like I have said before you don't know what murtha saw. He is tied into the military almost more than any member of congress. Yes you are clearly a hypocrite and you did smear murtha. The fact that your post is about murtha supposedly smearing some marines does not absolve you of the fact that you are a right-wing smear merchant and hypocrite. What kind of juvenile logic would you have to exhibit to think that asserting that your post is about murtha smearing would therefore get you off the hook? Just how dumb do you have to be to make such connection? But the fact is you are a hypocrite for the exact reason laid out in part IIIhttp://forums.salem.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=45352814

Try and refute it? Go ahead.

Oh and lets be clear. Your side only likes vets and military interventions when it tows the republican line. Ever notice hannity's two-faced hypocrisy when it came to clinton's intervention in kosovo? Same thing with the american foreign legion. Also will you try and get it through that thick right-wing skull of yours that the only ones that are still on the side of this administration are the blind republican political hacks like yourself. Shall I make a list of all the ex-generals and ex-CIA officiers that have come out against this administration that are hardly liberal? For you to paint the opposition to this administration as coming only from the left just shows once again how ignorant you are just like your ignorant statements about murtha being brainswashed by extreme 'liberal' brainwashing.

Yes you are a hypocrite just like most Right-wing republicans have become these days. I further suspect that you are getting paid to smear murtha in some way. Now lets see if my post gets censored. I bet it does

and about the bush administration leaking classified info for political reasons. They did these on 3 different occasions and where is the outrage from the hypocritical right that likes to accuse the left of weakening our countries national security? Here are the 3 examples of this.

1) http://forums.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=20903308

2) http://forums.salem.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=41436180

3) and of course the infamous of outing of valerie plame/wilson which is impossible to have a conversation with right-wingers because inevitble they spoout one debunked gop talking point after another on plame whether its the false assertion that her husband outed him to the false assertion that she was not covert or classified to the false assertion that she was the one that dispatched her husband to nigeria to the false assertion that her husband claimed that cheny sent him. The fact remains that the bush administration outed joe wilson's wife for politicla pay back even though her identify was classified and was working on WMD intel on iran.

Where is the outrage? You and your ilk like to label libs as traitors and threatening the national security of our country? Where is your consistency hypocrite?

There's an old axiom that warns against having this type of discussion with someone like this anonymous troll... it goes something like: "When you wrestle in the mud with a pig, everyone gets dirty... but the pig enjoys it."

So... at the risk of getting mud in my eye...

Let me start by informing you that you used "right-wing" and "Republican" about ten or so times in your most recent rant. That alone is very telling- as it shows you to be just another garden-variety liberal hack.

Had you any reasoning and debating abilities, you might find out that I am not a Republican at all. I am an Independent. In fact, I have never been registered as a Republican- nor will I ever be.

What I will claim to be is a Conservative. Unashamedly, proudly, loudly, and colorfully... I am a Conservative. I believe strongly in my country, and I support all those who defend it. We military types, you might find, are less interested in someone's "party line" than we are in their "America line."

Next... this little discussion began with my posting on the disgraceful behavior of a United States Congressman- behavior which is damaging our national security, emboldening our enemy, and smearing United States Marines (something which I will never sit still for). That's it. That was the scope of the discussion. The articles I linked to merely supported this.

You, as your kind generally does, decided to jump in and start a Bush derangement syndrome fight... and, in your enthusiasm, you tend to shoot at anyone who seems to be a likely target for your illogical rage. I'm reminded that, for someone (like you) who has only a hammer in his tool box, the whole world soon starts looking like a nail.

Sorry... but I'm not interested in one of those fights. If you would seriously like to defend Murtha saying what he said about those Marines, then you and I can talk... but if you just want to shout random liberal slogans about "right-wing Republicans," then I recommend looking elsewhere for someone to take your bait and play your strawman games.

I strongly support our President in many areas... and I strongly oppose his policies in many others. That's called independent-thinking... you really should try it sometime- especially if you ever get off the kool-aid.

Finally, I did not "smear" Murtha, you simplistic hypocrite... he took care of that all by himself. That's something else Conservatives believe strongly in: personal accountability. Murtha's words and actions are the only things besmirching his name.

Your post reminds me of the # one word that defines Republicanism and right-wingers these days. That term is PROJECTION. You point to my use of republican and right-winger and claim to be independent even though you you have used the terms "f far-left people", " liberal brainwashing","deranged far left"," far-left friends","aging liberal politician.","anti-American liberals." and even use the standard icons that the right likes to bash which are Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and to top it all off you link to a front page article titled"Osama's Congressman. Then after all of that hyperbole and partisian rhetoric you have the gall to turn around and call me a "garden-variety liberal hack. ". The reason why I used right-winger and republican is THAT YOU FIRST USED TERMS that gave your political viewpoint away. If you would have been more rational then I would have no need to use those terms. You may be a registered independent (don't belong to any political party) just like me but at the very least your political leanings lean hard to the right. Even though I am independent I obviously lean to the left but not that far to the left because there are # of issues that I believe that would be considered to the right by most people (like the death penalty, israel and a few more)

Had you any reasoning and intellectual abilities you would have had the intelligence to realize that accusing me of a hack would have made you look like a hypocrite but you did not even have even the most basic intelligence to catch that hypocrisy.

I you are really a conservative then the this administration and this party should be the last people you defend. They have violated almost every principle of conservativism from limited government to having neo-conservativism foregin policy. Just as Pat buchanan has said about what the republican party has becomefrom page 9 of his book WHERE THE RIGHT WENT WRONG-------------------------------------------------THE REPUBLICAN PHILOSOPHY MIGHT BE SUMMARIZED THUS: "To hell with principle; what matters is power, and that we have it, and that they do not"------------------------------------------------

furthermore like I have said I DONT BUY YOUR notion of what you claim your Original post was about. I believe that was just a cover foryou to bash murtha because he has become one of the main proponets to withdraw troops sometime in the future.

And as typical of you and your ilk you go for the strawman (its not me who is using the strawman but you). No where did I bush bash unless you include my use of the term "this administration" and the only reason I brought that up was in the context of YOU bringing up national security and emboldening our enemy to show the absolutley hypocrisy of right-wingers like you. Look at those 3 examples and it obvious how hypocritical the right-wing has become.

By the way. The only people that know who those marine specifically are those in their unit or those that are somehow involved in the investigations therefore even if murtha was out of line it is inaccurate to say he smeared their character since hardly anyone knows who they actually are. Besides there has been a # of articles that say the inside sources in the military has backed up what murtha has said. I am sure you will conveniently pull the 'liberal' media carnard to try and explain that one.

You DID SMEAR MURTHA and simply denying that does not make me simplisic of hypocritical. Do you even know what hypocritical means? the fact is you smeared him in ways that have nothing to do with what he has said concerning haditha that I all ready mentioned

The bottom line is that you are part of a pattern among the right-wing which is to attack anyone that has a military background who happens to come out against this administration. This happened to max cleland and then John Kerry and now Jack Murhta. Is it just a coincidence that your article has been linked to www.murthalied.com which just so happens to be run by the same people that swift boated kerry?

Many americans are just sick of how this administration is on 24 hour attack mode against any and everyone that is critical of this administration. These people have put themselves and their party ahead of america. Pat Buchanan is correct in what the republican party has become.

---"...because he (murtha) has become one of the main proponets to withdraw troops sometime in the future."---

'Sometime in the future'???? Wow... you have been paying attention! When is Murtha's future? "NOW NOW NOW NOW!! GET THEM OUT NOW NOW NOW!!" Your comment is laughable.

---"By the way. The only people that know who those marine specifically are those in their unit or those that are somehow involved in the investigations therefore even if murtha was out of line it is inaccurate to say he smeared their character since hardly anyone knows who they actually are."---

You want to know who they are? They are me, my son, three of my brothers, my best friend, several of the guys I work with now, that police officer over there... and every other Marine- and soldier, sailor, and airman- ...that's who they are. That's who Murtha smeared. The whole institution.

Your ridiculous point falls flat.

---"Is it just a coincidence that your article has been linked to www.murthalied.com which just so happens to be run by the same people that swift boated kerry?"---

I did not know that... but I will say that it would be an honor to be alongside the Swift Boat veterans who saved us from the unimaginable hell of john f'ing kerry (he served in Vietnam, by the way).

Anyway, you apparently missed the part where I said I was not interested in having a support/hate the President debate with you. Thanks for all the libelous attacks, though... that part was nice.

I especially liked how you adopted all of the things I said to you (hypocrite, strawman, etc.) and turned them backwards on me. I assume that is because you are not capable of your own arguments. It was rather like hearing a small child say "I'm not stupid, YOU'RE stupid!"

Clinton WAS wrong on Kosovo. The war being fought against Albanian Islamofascists by the Serbs was a truly just one, being yet another chapter in a centuries-old struggle against the jihad wages against the West. If your limited public school education had taught you any history at all, you might have known this. So, Boy Clinton was doubly wrong, because he took troops into a place where he had no business taking them, and when he did he had them bomb the WRONG SIDE. If he had aided the Serbs, then I would have supported the move wholeheartedly.

BTW, you might want to look up the Battle of Kosovo and the role of St. Tsar Lazar in the defeat of the Ottomans, preventing the Turks from overrunning Europe a full two centuries before Vienna. Try reading more about Kosovo and less DailyKos.

actually if you were not so ignorant about murtha's plan you would know it was not an immediate withdraw but the estimated time would be 6 months.

"You want to know who they are?"

no moron. As usual the point gets lost on that thick right-wing skull of yours. When someone says that someone's character as been smeared but they don't know the identity of that particular someonethen it makes no sense to say their character has been smeared or at least it is misleading. Smearing implies that someone is able to correlated a particular idenity with the particular charcters flaws being smeared. Since the identiy is not known to most you can't make that correlation. Now I realize that since this required logic to understand what I just this once again will be lost on that thick right-wing skull.

"I did not know that... but I will say that it would be an honor to be alongside the Swift Boat veterans who saved us from the unimaginable hell of john f'ing kerry (he served in Vietnam, by the way)."

Yes the saem swift boat vets that lied and lied and lied and lied about Kerry? Kerry would have been better than bush for the simply reason that I could see kerry an equivalent to cheney, rumsfield, wolfwitz of that real EVIL SOB KARL ROVE. Kerry would not have made the federal government a complete whorehouse for big money interests and he certainly would let the PNAC/Neo-con hijack ther american foreign policy the way the bush adminstration has done. He would have been far from perfect but far better than the bush administration.

"I especially liked how you adopted all of the things I said to you (hypocrite, strawman, etc.) and turned them backwards on me. I assume that is because you are not capable of your own arguments. It was rather like hearing a small child say "I'm not stupid, YOU'RE stupid!"

Thats funny I was thinking the exact same thing about you. It looks like we have a yet another level of projection and hypcrisy from you. Also it one thing to claim someone is a hypocrite and using strawman. Its another thing to specifically point out the specific hypocrisy and strawman. You have not done that. If so just don't claim that I am hypocrite or using strawman but do like I did and specifically point it out. You also clearly lied. I clearly was the first to accuse of hypocrisy rather than you accuse me of hypocrisy.

I like how you could not refute your obvious hypocrisy of accusing me of using "right-wing" and "republican" when you used 'left-wing' anbd 'liberal' over and over again. I like how you were unable to defend youself from your obvious hypocrisy of accusing murtha of hyperbole when your article was nothing but hyperbole.

More projection, hypocrisy and out right lying from. I'm the one that first pointed out your hypcrisy rather than you pointing out mine in which you have YET TO defend yourself over. Go do a simple search and you will see since my first post to you I mentioned your hypocrisy.

On clinton being wrong on Kosovo. My position is not that clinton was right on Kosovo. My position is the kosovo example is a good example of the hypocisy coming from the right. The right-wing typically likes to use humanitarian as justification for invading iraq but then how come those reasons were not good enough for Kosovo? Not only that but hardly any americans (if any at all) died from Kosovo where as in iraq 2500+ have died. Not only that the iraq invasion has had unprecented blowback and has made it so much easier for AQ and their many offshoots to recruit people. You can't say the same thing about KOSOVO. In fact there is no comparison there.

I would say that you need to learn you history if you think that islamofascists were the only (or even main) people the serbs were fighting. The Srebrenica massacre for example was defintley not a massacre carried out against islamofascist. Most of the massacres were being commited against the serbs despite the propaganda you might you have heard from michael weiner (aka michael savage).

I also got a kick out of your statement " he took troops into a place where he had no business taking ". HHMMM so do you think we had any business in iraq? if so give out your reasons without going into the same old tiresome GOP talking points (I have heard them all before).

I am equally amused at your assumption that I must have been on clinton's side on the KOSOVO affair and even more so with your reference to public education and history. In particular "being yet another chapter in a centuries-old struggle against the jihad wages against the West". HMMMM and you don't see the current conflict in iraq and in particular the one being raged between the sunnis and shiites in this way?

"BTW, you might want to look up the Battle of Kosovo and the role of St. Tsar Lazar in the defeat of the Ottomans, preventing the Turks from overrunning Europe a full two centuries before Vienna. Try reading more about Kosovo and less DailyKos.

But then, of course, UNREVISED history is never a Liberal stongpoint. "

WEll logic is never a right-wingers strongpoint. You are the 2nd person in this thread that has just pulled a strawman since I never made an argument to justify clinton's action is KOSOVO. I also find it ironic that you are giving a historical perspective to explain why clintons actions were wrong? HMMMM and what did hisory say in regards to Iraq and the ME in general? Please tell us. Do I need to explain this to you too?

I am quite finished crawling through the mud with you, son. It is obvious that your intentions are to engage "right-wing extremists" in talking point wars. As I said, I am not interested in such things- just as I am not interested in engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

You can stand on whichever side of this issue you choose. I will continue to insist that these Marines- and every other American- be granted due process and not convicted in the media by political hacks like Murtha. There is a special place in hell for anyone who treats our military people like that.

I will have to comment on one of your pathetic posts, though. On the issue of patriotism, you mock the person who said patriots are loudly proud of their country:

---"Please tell me this is satire?" ---

See...? There it is. There is the fundamental difference between the deranged far left and the normal American. We understand that there is no shame whatsover in being vocally proud of our country. Your cult maintains that it is somehow patriotic to be unpatriotic.

There is no middle ground there... you will not ever get it. Just as you don't get why Murtha's sin was so despicable.

So... you can go back to whatever hate-filled site you call home and brag about how you "got" us "right-wing extremists." Tell them all how you gave us the verbal beating of our lives. Whatever you do, though, please keep saying the things you say loudly and publicly... that is the very best advertising our side can ever get. Once normal people hear your ideas, they run away from your candidates as fast as they can.

Take care, young'un... and watch out for Cheney and Rove- they have powers, you know!

Once again you go on spouting nothing but hypocrisy and projecting left and right. Calling my posts hate-filled all while spouting hate left and right just like you did when you linked to that article titled " "Osama's Congressman,". Making assertion after assertion with one damn quote or anything to back it up.

But before I go I just have to respond to the topic of patriotism and how just spun this so predictably. I mock the pseudo-patriots like you and your ilk. You think that the more someone yells and the top of his lungs how patriotic they are that that proves their patriotism. In your blind hatred and attempt to demonize me you put the spin machine in overdrive and paint me

1) as part of the far left and chances are you don't even know what the far left is

2) that I (which is so typical of people like you) am unpatriotic and don't love my country

Its been my observation that those that try and tell everyone how patriotic they are usually compensating for something else. You ever heard of the old saying"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"? what it means is that some people who have been assholes and/or loser there entire lifes will cling to patriotism not because they love their country because its the easiest way to regain any respectability and honor they ever had.

Now of course since the intellect to debate you will spin this into me bashing patriotism when obviously I am only bashing the phoneys who use for their own selfish motives and thats was the basis for my reply "Please tell me this is satire?"

Someone who is doing their best to cut down on their oil consuption by using for efficient cars or shopping at local stores rather than a store like walmart are far more patriotic than these hypocrites driving SUVs with a "I support the troops" bumbper sticker.

Now you damn right-wingers think you are more patriotic than everyone but the rest of us can see through the rhetoric of people like you.

And let me just add yes there is a special place in hell but its for people like you who bash, smear and unfarily demonize a great american like murtha under the phoney pretext that he did not give marines a fair hearing when the real reason is you don't like his politics.

Ok now be sure and respond again. Also be sure to say once again "No more mud for me, though.." or "I am quite finished crawling through the mud with you, so" only to respond and engage in mud-slingging once again. Come on you can do it. Show us all once again what a liar by going back on your word oncew again. Come on. You know you can do it.

This site gets more interesting everytime I read it and it is quite obvious that Murtha's supporters have taken an interest as well. In response to the 'Anonymous Troll,' I have a great article by Ralph Peters which was recently published. Enjoy!!!

June 28, 2006 Lynching the MarinesBy Ralph Peters

Let's just hang those Marines accused in the Haditha incident. Get it over with. They don't need a court martial. They're guilty. The media already decided the case.

A few other Marines and soldiers are also accused of murder in Iraq. Save our tax dollars. Just hang them, too.

Forget the stresses of combat. Forget that war really is hell. Whatever you do, don't mention the atrocities committed by the terrorists or insurgents.

Those two young American soldiers tortured to death a few weeks ago? Bury that story fast. The terrorists are the good guys. We're the only torturers.

Don't close Guantanamo. Put our troops in the cells. There's no surer way to quell the media's outrage over Gitmo than freeing the terrorists held there and filling it with our soldiers. Don't worry about individual charges. Collective guilt applies.

Ignore history. Let's pretend that warfare can be waged with absolute sterility, without so much as giving the enemy a broken fingernail. War isn't about fighting. It's about making people happy.

Civilian casualties? The thousands of Iraqis slain by terrorists were legitimate targets. Iraqi civilians are only innocent victims when Americans kill them.

And avoid the true potential parallel with the Vietnam War--after we cut and ran those peace-loving Communists killed at least ten million civilians in cold blood in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.

Let's all get on-message: America is the real evil empire, American troops are homicidal maniacs, and the world would be a better place if we just surrendered and let a non-partisan committee of Islamists, Chinese, Russians and Europeans run it.

Think of how much better off the world would be without us: If American-imperialist thugs had stayed out of World War II, we wouldn't have that nasty Israel problem. The European Union would've come into being decades earlier (speaking German, but what's not to like?). The Japanese would've solved China's over-population dilemma. And the Soviet Union would still be building the workers' paradise.

As for Iraq, not only should we get out now and let all those flower-child terrorists, insurgents and militias inaugurate the Age of Aquarius, we must get our barbaric troops under control.

That means punishing a young Marine if he so much as writes a playful song about the war that turns into an internet hit. Forget the real lyrics to "Mademoiselle From Armentieres," or that old marching song from the Philippines, "The Monkeys Have No Tails in Zamboanga." Forget all those hilarious "Jody" calls and cadences. Just punish that guy with the guitar and the sense of humor (the WWII cartoonist Bill Mauldin should've stood trial at Nuremberg).

Thank god we have the media to tell the world how rabid we are. And we won't mention what would happen to every journalist in Iraq tomorrow if our troops disappeared overnight. Bad taste to hint that our enemies might not be champions of free speech. And let's not pile on while the press is still mourning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Okay, now let's be serious: I do not condone criminal acts in wartime. If any of our soldiers or Marines charged with murder or other serious crimes are found guilty, they should be sentenced accordingly under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

But let's give them a fair trial first. And let's remember that an act committed in the heat of battle is different from walking into a McDonald's and killing a half-dozen people for meth money.

Isn't it remarkable that, to the media, our troops are guilty until proven innocent, while our enemies are innocent even after they're proven guilty? Compare the media feeding frenzy over Haditha with the utter lack of detailed human-interest reporting on the thousands of victims of terrorist atrocities. And just wait: In no time, we'll hear that those terrorists arrested last Thursday in Miami were unfairly entrapped by the feds.

There is no question: Discipline must be maintained within our military. And discipline is maintained. Anyone who knows anything about wars throughout history has to be astonished at how few criminal incidents our troops have been involved in during their time in Iraq. We have a humane, magnificent military. Given the nature of counter-insurgency operations, we've set a statistical record for good behavior.

Our troops will never be given credit, though. To get the media's attention, an American soldier must die, suffer a crippling wound, or commit a crime.

But the media aren't the worst of it, in the end. Who expects responsible, moral behavior from our media any more? No, the worst of it is the cowardice of our political and even military leaders. Four-star generals may be lions on the battlefield, but turn a camera on them and they're jellyfish. Want to send President Bush into a defensive crouch? Mention Guantanamo.

Our leaders need to stand up for those in uniform. While criminal actions must be investigated, when challenged with media exaggerations or outright lies our leaders need to fight back - and to hammer home that there is no such thing as an immaculate war.

Instead of blubbering that he, too, wants to close Guantanamo, our president should state manfully that, if necessary, we'll keep Gitmo open for the next hundred years.

The United States is history's most virtuous power. Our soldiers are valorous and decent. Our cause is just. Why don't our leaders have the guts to say that? How can they cower while our troops are crucified? Instead of Joshua's trumpets, we get Peter's fretful denials.

At this point, I doubt that any of our accused Marines and soldiers can get a fair trial. I don't want the guilty to go free. But I do think that, if Bill Clinton could pardon his criminal friends, President Bush should consider pardoning any soldiers or Marines convicted of violent crimes under combat conditions.

The hate-America bigots in the media shouldn't get away with lynching our troops.

"HMMMM and you don't see the current conflict in iraq and in particular the one being raged between the sunnis and shiites in this way?"

Actually, Anon., I do. When Sunnis and Shiites tear at each other's throats, the West is that much safer. When the Romans figured out that setting the barbarians against each other kept them from the gates (at least for a while), Rome was saved from several sackings in the short run.

I support the Administration policies in Iraq for geopolitical reasons, not for ideals. Hussein was a useful tool against the Islamofascists in Iran for a while, but when the Iran-Iraq war ended, he got a bit restive and had to be declawed and, eventually, removed. The new democratic government in Iraq will provide a much-needed island of pro-American stability in the ME, especially when nominal "allies" lie Saudi Arabia are actually working to support the very forces that we are combating. This becomes increasingly important in view of recent events in Turkey and Somalia, as well as the decline of Western European will to defend itself.

In re Kosovo, the historical truth is that Kosovo was always Serbian territory, both politically and from a religious standpoint. The Albanian Islamic presence is the result of Tito's punishment of the Serbs (he was an ethnic Croat) and his desire to create a "Yugoslavija." To say that this was stupid is understating the case, but outside of Marx, Engels, and Alger Hiss Communists have never been intellectuals.

Also, the "massacre" of Srebenica has been vastly overstated, and in purely mathematical terms was "balanced out" by the massacres and pogroms against Serbs by the Mohammedans, both during the "war" and after. In fact KOFOR, far from deterring anti-Serb actions, has unwittingly (for the most part) fostered much of it by its interventions.

So I stand by my initial statement: if Clinton had intervened in Kosovo on behalf of the Serbs, I would have supported the policy whether the GOP or fellow Conservatives had not. As it was, he intervened on the side of the Crescent and an increasingly incursive Albania, working to preserve Tito's misbegotten legacy. Truth be told, I expected no less from the Hero of Mogadishu.

PS I retract my statements as to your ignorance of the Kosovo conflict---you are fairly well-informed, if somewhat in error. you have my apologies and respect on this point, at least.

OO_RAHH! Gunny! God Bless you for standing up for your marvelous brothers & sisters who can PROUDLY call themselves U. S. MARINES. You've stated so eloquently what I have fumed about under my breath for months about Congressman Murtha (In his case, an EX-Marine). Just remember the wisdom of Rush, that when you argue with an idiot/fool you may not be able to tell the difference between the two (You held your own very well with the anonymous idiot, however). I've been looking for a patriotic Gunny or Chief to say what has needed to be said about our great service members, country, President, and Murtha's rantings. You made me very proud... LCDR Deanne C. BEAGLES, USN (ret)

I truly admire your work. There is more than a little irony that John Murtha served in Vietnam, a war in which many of us felt then, and still feel today, that we were stabbed in the back by gutless politicians in Washington, who sold us out on the battlefield for their own political benefit in Washigton. He, who was once one of us, is now totally one of them.

It is often said that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine, but that really isn't true. There are some, thankfully very few, and John Murth is clearly one of them also. He has abandoned the Brotherhood, sold out not just the Haditha Marines, but each and every one of us who has ever won the right to wear the Eagle, Globe and Anchor, and, finally, John Murtha has dishonored himself, and by so doing has lost his right to be identified as one of us.

Everyone has their opinion, just remember thats what they are opinions. Gunny I applaud you, its about "Semper Fidelis" to God, Country, Corps and Family. I thought I would share this that I recieved in an email. It simplifies the motives for what or goal is to promote freedom.

Respctfully

CWO G USMC

Get Out of Bed" and Wake up America

This is not very long, but very informative. You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979. That alarm has been ringing for years.

U.S. Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speechhe gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary. AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start. Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against the U.S. continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut. Whenit explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the snooze button once more.

Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed throughthe main gate of the U.S. Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourned her dead and hit the snooze button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, and America continued her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and America slept. Soon the terrorism spread to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the U.S. Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as U.S. interests have been continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and pushed overboard.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4, and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force barracks, 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224 people. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 U.S. Navy Sailors. Attacking a U.S. war ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against U.S. soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said, "It seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year....this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our freedom and the freedom of our children in years to come.

You make me quite proud dad. (pop). If only I were nearly as articulate as you are in your letters and interview. Your voice is being heard by my fellow Marines and I and it is the voice that we've been dying to hear. You speak for us all with devotion and extreme clarity and I am extremely honored to call you my father.

Murtha, you are a coward, any of your previous deeds as a Marine are well diminished in my eyes. Your actions are disgusting, to say the least. May all Marines and servicemen and women, turn their backs on you in time of judgement. My name is Madison Bailey, former Marine 1/8 0331.

I too am sick of this crap. First, the left is desparate to have a "war hero", as so few of them have ever worn the uniform.

This isn't about politics, this is about giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which last time I checked was still illegal.

This is about looking dead square in the eyes of young Marines and presuming guilt. These men fight and are willing to die to have a country that presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

You stated this so clearly, but your little troll tried to make it into Democrat and Republican. Personally, I can't stand either! There was a criminal element that I saw while I was a Marine, but that was such a tiny number of people.

Could Haditha be for real? Unlikely to get that many Marines of bad character all in the same place at the same time, but it is possible.

Murtha, you have a 1st amendment right to speak your mind, but your 1st amendment right doesn't outweigh the right of others to live.

As more die in Iraq, because our badly beaten enemy believes that they can still win due to Murtha's irresponsible rants is murder!

Ok, I consider myself a pretty middle of the road kinda guy....I believe ina strong military and take great pride in my number of years in the Navy. I feel Murtha did jump the gun and sedition I believe is a pretty accurate description. However, I also believe that had we not gotten ourselves into this mess to start with this controversy wouldnt be an issue. Gunny I respect your service and your corps. There is an old saying my father used to say...Never argue with idiots...they will drag you to their level and beat you with experience, Anonymous had his say....leave it at that, we are all intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions.

Retorting what is said in this letter can easily be blasphemized as, "unpatriotic, liberal" or some other bullshit term of of generics.

I will say, though the content of your letter puts me in staunch opposition to you, Gunny. But, but...I like your rhetorical style. A complex use of debate points and wordings, peppered with belligerence. Given my rural Alabama birth-placement and current residence, combined with being a cultured and educated male, I share this rhetorical commonity with you.

I really do wish I had seen the press-conference that enraged you so greatly, alas the only thing I have to go on with Represenative Murtha was when the House passed the, "We Will Succeed in The War on Terror" bill.

Of all the people that spoke, though Murtha was clearly leading the opposition as chief speaker, he also swayed me the most.

Comparing Represenative Murtha to Cindy Sheehan and Micheal Moore is a bit much, though. Cindy Sheehan is just a distraught woman who went on extremes, even more so when she got publicity. I sympathize with her son's death, we all do with the death of one of our soliders. But she simply spouted incoherencies about the Israeli-American agenda in Iraq. She's simply a nut, a nut I sympathize for, considering her loss. She is merely a distraught mother who got attention on the news, not a political strategists, far too many of her detractors treat her as such rather than just ignore her

And Michael Moore, though I tend to oppose those he opposes, yet not side with those he sides with. When he does oppose someone, he attacks a lot into the field of speculation and possibility. He's simply, too much.

But, John Murtha is a man who I thoroughly agree with when it comes to the things he has said recently.

He says we can't win this thing, "militaristicaly" why? Because we aren't fighting conventional forces, Dan Daly spoke to a group of his soldiers who were outnumbered in a field of battle. We've already beaten the Iraqi army of Suddam Hussein in the field of battle, conventionally we can crush the might of any nation, just as we have in Iraq. This is a much different kind of fight now. It's with people who are planting mines for convoys to hit, for Arab militants to take potshots from rooftops at GIs going from house to house.

It isn't soldier-soldier it's reminiscient to a lack of chivalry, dare I say. Just as how the British had to face colonist guerillas who shot from the trees rather than line up march against the British and get mowed down. It is now us that the tables have turned on, they are fighting us indrectly and other than try and target leaders such as Osama and Zarqawi (Who's dead now, think God) we have no central center points to direct our attacks. We merely occupy Iraq and continue to receive these indirect attacks.

So, how do we stop it? If we aren't there, they aren't attacking us, correct? And that, "we fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" well...That's crap. They uncovered a plot on our subways in New York, a seperate plot on our tunnels, the plot on Sears Tower recently. Thank God these acts have not gone through like 9/11. But apparently, we're fighting them over here, too.

But why are they fighting us over there? Because we're doing a shitty job in Iraq. Now, I love this country. And I'm a patriot. At my computer desk, I can turn to my right and look into my living room from my sun room and through a front window where our flag waves. And this following problem is not our military's fault. But like Murtha said, we're permeating a culture in Iraq, a culture and a concept for them to hate us. Muslims already think it is taboo for infidels (Non-believers of Muhammad) to be on Muslim soil. Granted, not many are extreme on regular tourists, though some tourists get attacked....But if a nation viewed as strongly Christian has their military occupying a Musling nation isn't considered, "infidels on Muslim soil" then I don't know what is. I wish those people weren't like that, but they are and that is the reality of the situation. And we must live with that.

Murtha also pointed out occupation is doing a poor job, that we are failing Americans, our soldiers, and the free people of Iraq. Key projects in Iraq that are suppose to bring them clean water and electricity in their urban areas are being horrendously delayed. This raising the level of squalor of the Iraqi people, this squalor of cultural differences between us and them, and their lacking vital utilities is leading them from going from Iraqi people, to insurgents. And who has to take the heat from this? Our soldiers. Our soldiers who are doing police-esque work now because it is not "open war" they're fighting that damn urban war, taking potshots, hitting mines.

Murtha realizes that our eliminating Saddam is appreciated, the world realizes that. But our continued presence is not being welcomed.

I saw you on FOX, sergeant. It was the website you had on there that brought me here. On there you said, "I'm not here to engage in political debate" that you were just here to tell Murtha to stop speaking badly of Marines. Yet, in this letter you call him a cut and runner, a liberal, as if you already hold grudges against the man.

But what about these marines? I believe you would agree, that any human being who would slaughter helpless women and children...Whether that person is an insurgent, a Marine, a Nazi, somebody from China, me, you, a mailman in the country of Moldova. That anyone that does that is a disgrace to humanity. But an investigation deserves to take place, yes. Innocent until proven guilty.

But like I said, I am ignorant of Murtha's press-conference. But according to his statements in the House of Represenatives he stated that he believed, just that....Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but -if- someone did do that, they are lowly excuses for human beings. And Murtha said that if those actions are being committed, that they will further permeate the hatred for us Americans and it will increase the conversion number of regular Iraqi people, to insurgents.

Thanks for putting into words the disgust that I and some other vets have been feeling at the disgraceful behavior of this particular congresscritter.

I'm only a Cold War sailor, but when word of the Haditha story "broke," me and my retired zoomie EOD buddy kind of looked at each other, and said "Ain't no way that happened like that."

We both spent a lot of time and effort to train our boys and girls to be the best that they could be: The best airmen and sailors, the best members of their community, the best Americans they could be. And we had good raw materials since they all volunteered for the low pay, long hours, the isolation from family and friends, all in return for a chance to serve America.

Being a member of the Marine Corps bus drivers union (that would be the Navy for you non-squids out there) I got the chance to work with Marines (our NGFS team was chuckling for months after the range officer at San Clemente asked us to "wander off target, so I can train my boys to walk you on."), brawl with them (and agin' 'em too) and am left with nothing but respect for an institution that could have arisen no other place than the United States.

And to your anonymousey troll, you need to choose your friends and alliances a little more closely. In a time of strife or difficulty, I'd rather a Marine whose guts I hated than a fair weather buddy like your pal Murtha. At least I wouldn't have to worry about being stabbed in the back like Murtha did to America, not just the Corps.

Gunny, I have wanted so BAD to say just that to Murtha. I have become full of hatred for the Old Bastard. Unlike him my Purple Heart is well documented and only 18 months old. I paid a severe price for my support. And I STILL am Anti_left. I support Bush I support the war. I DO NOT support Murtha or his Alzheimer ravings. Thanks for writing that letter for all of us. SGT F US ARMY INFANTRY OIFII

Tony Carmonte: I'll grant you a point for using a name I assume is your own-that's better than anonymous trolling. But you get docked that point almost immediately for telling us of your erudition.

You end your post with: "So, I argue these points with you and am curious of your thoughts." and while I'm not Gunny G., I'll be happy to address your "points," if I can find them.

Although not substantive, you bristle at the comparison of Congresscritter Murtha to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore, while noting that the latter two are "a nut," and "too much." Sorry, Murtha's rhetoric is identical to Sheehan and Moore, and adds zero to the possibility of constructive debate. While not directly related to your points, I would note that Sheehan is not just a nut, but an absolute disgrace to the memory of her son.

Your first substantive point appears to be that we can't win militaryily "Because we aren't fighting conventional forces," but I have to point out that history doesn't support you here. The Marine Corps history in the Pacific alone is sufficient to refute this misconception, while the British experience at Empire is another example that you misconstrue. "Unconventional" forces have the disadvantage of not having a tax base to draw from, and thereby have to be funded extemporaneously-a factor that the NYTimes fails to understand, and that most people, like yourself, fail to understand that the funding itself is a legitimate military target. Although military folk would call that "striking at the enemy's logistics."

You go on to say "This is a much different kind of fight now." to which I have to retort, No, it isn't. As Laurie Mylroie points out in an article at the NY Sun, the Iraqi's consider this a fight against the Iraqi Baathists who were part and parcel of Saddam Hussein's regime: so in fact, the fight is against the same enemy we started with. That they are importing terrorists as substitutes for a conventional force that couldn't stand against us in the field is of little import: again it reduces to a battle of logistics.

Then you say "We merely occupy Iraq and continue to receive these indirect attacks." which is a classic example of a war of attrition. What you fail to realize is that we are losing relatively little while the enemy continues to expend itself in enormous efforts that reduce them to despair, until they see what they are influential people like Murtha tell them that they are "winning."

And then this: "But apparently, we're fighting them over here, too." Well, no shit, Sherlock. As it happens, I'm no longer allowed to fight them "over there," so parts of my day job are devoted to fighting them here. We're winning here because there are a lot of people dedicated to making sure that you and the editors of the NY Times stay in one piece while making sure that our boys and girls over there have the resources that they need to beat the hell out of an enemy that sees "over there" as its home court. And we're winning on both fronts, in spite of faux patriots like you and Murtha.

Your next three paragraphs are a refrain of "Because we're doing a shitty job in Iraq," "occupation is doing a poor job, that we are failing" and "our continued presence is not being welcomed." Sgt Boggs interview of General Ali at http://www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com/ is sufficient to refute that meme. You also sneak this in "Our soldiers who are doing police-esque work..." Well, guess what? One of my missions was teaching law enforcement in Central America after the US used military force to topple a tinpot dictator. The indigenous personnel were eager to learn, and even more so when they realized that we weren't there to tell them "how" it should be done, but that they had to develop their own methodology based on their form of government and their cultural norms. That we were there to provide support and an example of how we do it was incidental to motivating them to develop a rule of law that fit their society.

And finally, you focus on the point of Gunny G.'s letter to Congresscritter Murtha, "Whether that person is an insurgent, a Marine, a Nazi, somebody from China, me, you, a mailman in the country of Moldova." There exists a small element of people in any group who, when the chance is presented, will engage in criminal action instead of acting honorably. But this isn't such a case. The more that I hear from people close to the incident, this is sounding like the enemy taking advantage of a psychological warfare op against the US.

And Representative Murtha, despite his service as a Marine, fell for it and is actively aiding the enemy. Something that I would never expect of my fellow veteran sailors, airmen, let alone a Marine.

Well, now that my opening comment covered the broad conversation that even a mention of Iraq causes, the entire need for war, etc, etc.

And now that I have some quotes from the press conference, I can more accurately draw my conclusions.

Now, Murtha is a congressman, think about that a congressman, a Marine big-wig. He pretty much has good connections and could find out a lot of things we would never know.

Now, people are innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean you can't say all you want about them, there's that whole free speech thing we have, too. I'm not saying it isn't a blunder, look at the controversy, apparently it is. But demonizing someone over given their entire life of service in Congress and in the Marines over one press conferece?

Now, I begin to wonder....The Marines in question claimed an IED started the bloodshed, yet. Murtha claims there was no IED, I really do doubt he's lying, and if he is I'll come here and retract ever statement I've made defending him in this instance.

Now, apparently he has some kind of info that the IED didn't exist. And if that is true, then these Marines must be lying. And if they are lying, well....That is some grim truth to face. But....That is if the IED didn't exist.

Even more so, there are photos that one of the big newspapers have, they showed them which helped make this go so public, and these civillians were shot at close range, mimicking an execution style.

Now, it may not be that simple, my step-grandfather, a retired Command Sergeant Major in the Army who's grandson, my cousin is a Marine in Iraq as we speak. My grandfather and I had a conversation, now.....He doesn't have any inside information but he said that he believes they are being criminalized and what happened was either battle stress by itself or a case of one of these civillians were firing up them and the executive officer ordered for the entire lot of them to be wiped out.

Frankly, when it all boils down to it. About the "massacre" in question, we really don't have enough information to -sentence- anyone involved and that same ignorance in this situation of what we know about what went on and what we know that Murtha knows really should keep anyone from making such attacks.

In all due honesty, maybe everybody should shut the hell up? Huh, kinda profound.

kmg says: "...wanna take bets on whether it is enough for some of these "anti's"??"

LMAO!

Hell, Gunny, I just got a hi-skool eddymacayshun from a place known for prepping loggers and chicken packing plant workers. I'm guessing, with the aid of a class in statistics that Uncle Sam later paid for, that there just won't be too many takers for that particular wager.

Although, if you want a real wager, what do you think the chances of "Tony Carbonte" showing up again are?

Unfortunately, my hi-skool eddymacayshun shows up as some typos where I meant to say "militarily," "...until they see what they think are influential people like Murtha..." and "Carbonte" vice "Carmonte."

Oh well. Being one of them knuckle dragging right-wingers is a lot less painful than being a liberal, cause there is less thinking involved.

I double post because in the time I made my last inquirement, I noticed I had a reply.

So, I rebuttle.

I start with, this isn't my real name for various security reasons that extends from some forums, chatrooms, etc that I frequent. This is however, the name I use and as far as I am concerned, it's just as good as my real name.

Now, to why I don't believe this can be won from a military perspective. We can kill people in Iraq all day long, we could kill the terroists all day long, the insurgents, anybody. But I don't believe we can stop the permeation of the, "Die, die, American infidel!" culture, rather it will just extend to its limits on its own right and eventually, because eventually, whether "win" or "withdraw" or even "end of the world" we won't be in Iraq. Now, I'm well aware that we can stop funding and pinch investments made into terroist cells. But I doubt it takes much for one man who had enough because his neighbor was caught in American-Insurgent crossfire to go out, but an AK-47 or even a simple .22 pistol and take a potshot and end the life of one of our brave young men, though nearby troops would probably eradicate him, then deed has been done.

The funding isn't taxbased, apparently, unless some government corruption that is siding money to these militants is going on, which I'm sure it is on a small-scale. And there's a money pattern going to fund these organizations. But what about regular Joe, or Muhammad shall I say who just snapped because he can't get any electricity or clean water, his kids can't go to school because he keeps them home because of the danger in the streets and though it may be Saddam's fault, Bush's fault, or heck...China's fault, whatever it is he thinks in his now warped mind, he took it out on one of our men.

Now, I know what a war of attrition is, and that's what they're fighting, I mean...They can't obviously think they'll blitzkrieg some tanks in New York one day....No, they wanna pot-shot and IED us by the one's and two's, maybe take an RPG to a helicopter and take out a crew of eight. Until we go Vietnam era again, march on the streets and cause domestic unrest until we pull out. I know we can stay there all the live-long day, militarily. I know that really, all we're doing is straining the economy some, losing lives which not to sound harsh because any loss is horrid, we still have thousands and thousands of enlisted men left and so far we've only lost less than 3,000. Of course we can stay there all we want. I just don't see the point in why we should strain what bit we are straining.

And I say this because, I was against the war in the first place. Granted, I was in the generic, "Bush just wants oil" camp...But I was against the war. And when we find out there is no WMDs and the Al-Qaeda and Hussein connection never existed. Well, then we're there to support freedom and democracy.....Ah, of all the countries that have atrocities being carried out, we go all-out on you, Iraq.

And if it wasn't for the Reagan Administration supplying the chemical weapons for Saddam during the eight-year Iraq-Iran war then maybe that wouldn't be the Bush Administration, Republican, War Democrats, Conservative, and media excuse for the war.

I was for war in Afghanistan, when 9/11 hit, like any red-blooded American, that's what I wanted, blood. And now that we are in Iraq, I don't believe we should up and leave today. I believe we have failed miserably up to this point in Iraq. Crucial projects to improve life in Iraq are horrendously delayed, if not abandoned. That isn't to say we can't salvage what we have left. And we certainly can't leave Iraq, today. It must be soon and we must leave the burden upon the Iraqi Defense Force after having them well-trained.

And I said the, "We're fighting them over here too." because supporters of the war have claimed, "We fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them over here." as if we weren't in Iraq, they wouldn't come over here. No matter what, they'll come over here. And being a faux-patriot! The hell kind of damn high do you get off claiming that? In the same House of Represenatives debate I mentioned above, Nancy Pelosi, who I know little of so I'm in no support of her career, but I am of high-patronage of her words when she said that the right can't accuse the left of not being patriotic, we're not gonna play that game anymore. The fact that we come here and have this dicussion, that we show this fret for what is best for our government, our people, and our military personnel, whether disagree or not....This concern we have makes us all patriots, and it's the damndest of things to accuse someone else of such. Especially someone that you know about only from a blog. Your rhetoric is sharp and your arguing points, though I disagree with them are strong in their own right, but such a hollow personal jab speaks a lot about character. And other than the implication of your character, I will do my best as I hope you do...To refrain from noting any traits we may have, our character, or our lack of patriotism. I never onced downed our, "police-esque" work, interaction witht he community is one of the better sides of war. Building bridges, schools, etc. It's just that a military superpower doesn't have that gap of an advantage when you do that kind of work compared to, "open battle." To achieve victory in open battle....A plane can sweep by and destroy a tank, we win...Simple as that many times, and if ground forces are needed, heck we could dominate in Iraq...Look at what we did to Saddam's feared Republican Guard during the Gulf War. But, though our soldiers have more sophisticated weapons, thermal goggles, body armor, etc, etc. You lose a great deal of that gap of advantage only for a smaller gap when a team of soldiers barge into a room suspected of housing a weapons cache and it's filled with angry men with AK-47s.

And it isn't that the loss of a few of our soldiers has made me soft and whining to pull out. Like I said, I never wanted in Iraq. I didn't feel it was our place there. I wasn't convinced of the WMDs and Al-Qhaeda connection. My security issues involved eliminating the deficit, getting more Americans jobs, empowering the economy, securing our border and for foreign security, cracking down on international terroist cells, being multi-lateral in this so other countries cooperate so we don't hafta send in ground forces, occupy, just to bust up some terroist cells that really kicked in -after- we occupied that nation.

I'm doubting my ability to become a regular member of this commenting community, especially with the publicity and frequent visits it is taking. I don't feel I can continue reading every post because I am engaged regularily, elsewhere. However, if needed I will opt for some private discussions. I have said my piece and this may be the last I come here, unless I feel a reply to my reply is of worthy cause. Adios.

Carmonte, erudite commentators don't use pseudo-Carollian constructs like "commonity," even as American writers don't affect British spellings (unless they're English Lit. professors trying to impress their MLA cohorts). In this sense, your rhetorical style is indeed "common," although not in the sense you meant.

If you are going to try to spiff up your sophomoric essays, I suggest you read Strunk & White and avoid trying to sound as though you are on summer break from Amherst.

I believe the word you were trying to use (and used without regard to basic English grammar, I might add)was "commonality," since the closest word in English to your usage was "commonty," a very specialized term used before the Scottish Bar.

Now, I do wanna start off with why I made another comment. This is a much more simple comment to reply to as it isn't a long, drawn marathon post of arguing points, rather it's what is said at the bottom of this page, "Post a COMMENT."

Not downing people who, "marathon post." heck, I did it. But a comment is so much easier.

Now, back to my being damned.

I can't believe, of three of my posts, in all of their combined length. I received one reply that was the length of three paragraphs all based upon the usage of one word.

Maybe it's my past years of getting involved in forums and such, when you make so many comments, posts, etc. And especially when you have been up for about two nights, it was one of those nights that I caught the FOX interview which lead me here. And then a person comes on here, uses a word, one single word. And he is bashed. Rather than reply to content of words, their point, their meaning, I receive a comment based on a word that lacked a few letters to keep it from being a typo.

Living in the south, though I am sure this occurs everywhere....I have seen people speak and use incorrect words. Throughout school I have read classmate's reports, essays, etc and I have seen incorrect grammar. Being on chatrooms and forums I have seen people make typo after typo. I don't down those who correct others, though I see no practical reason in making an entire post about it. And I have found that it makes for a much more civil conversation to simply nod you head when you notice a few grammar mistakes, or typing errors. And rather focus on what was meant, based on context.

I'm not a fan of absolutely correct grammar or word usage anyways, a degree of it is needed so that we have a basis on which to understand eachother. I believe that if we all speak in our own unique styles then we avoid having acutely insipid speech patterns.

Which, that may be the reason why I'm having this conversation and so quick to down over-critical responses that hinge upon technicalities that distracts from subject at hand. Because I am not a patron of the written word as I am of the spoken word.

I have said throughout my years, especially in chatrooms where I tend to speak more in my roots because of the constant, simple "how was your day?" conversations. And as I say to people there, "I come here not to write a term paper, I come here to converse. I am an orator, not an author."

Tony Carmonte surprises me by returning, and addressing my post to him. Good on ya'.

You say, "This is however, the name I use and as far as I am concerned, it's just as good as my real name." And that's fine with me. Even though I'm no longer a sailor, I'm entitled to use my titles by virtue of an honorable discharge and the combination of my rank/rate and designator are sufficient to make me unique among the sailors I'm aware of. At least, I'm not aware of another "EW1(SG)" wandering about the internet or anyplace else for that matter. I also know only one other person entitled to wear submariner's dolphins, a strategic deterrent patrol pin, and a Coast Guard cutterman's device, but that's another story.

You got gigged not for choosing an "identity" to post under, as I said, a name is certainly better than "anonymous" whether its yours or a pseudonym. You lose points with me, however, for describing your own erudition. Something I think little of except for a Shakesperean quip.

Next, you state your opinion as "Now, to why I don't believe this can be won from a military perspective." Minor quibble here, you don't have a military perspective, while it should be obvious that the blog owner here, and a number of the commenters as well, do. I understand what you meant to say though, and its a fair statement. You go on, though, to conflate legitimate strategic goals with the daily tactics necessary to win what is essentially a conflict of barbarians versus Western Civilization.

To legitimately "win" in this context, we need to stop what you call "the permeation of the, "Die, die, American infidel!" culture," and this is a strategic goal. There are a number of fundamental things that need to be done to do this, but if you had a "military perspective," you would understand how many of them are achievable by our currently constituted armed forces. Its quite possible that no other military force in history understands and adapts its daily tactics to the strategic goals of our nation the way our all volunteer force does today. This understanding extends down from the Joint Chiefs, often as low as the platoon or even squad level.

You do display an ignorance of our enemy though. We just aren't concerned with, threatened by, or engaging "... one man who had enough because his neighbor was caught in American-Insurgent crossfire ..." "... or Muhammad shall I say who just snapped because he can't get any electricity or clean water ..." because these actors are imaginary.

What we are facing is an ideology whose only distinguishing feature when compared to the National Socialists of 1930s Germany is that theirs is a supranational movement rather than just a national movement like Hitler's. However, in contrast to a nation-state like Germany, our enemy is eclectically funded ... by madrassas across the Middle East whose adherents are totally comitted to global conquest, and there is some clandestine funding from nation-states who are also comitted to jihad and who are under the mistaken impression that its in their strategic interest to annoy the US. But there isn't a single nation-state foolish enough to come right out and declare war (jihad) against us: they understand that they are too weak to do that, so they choose to fund proxies instead.

You then say "Now, I know what a war of attrition is, and that's what they're fighting." but fail to understand that there is no way we can lose such a contest militarily. "Until we go Vietnam era again, ..." and "...straining the economy some, losing lives..." are exactly the perception that the enemy wants the electorate here to have: they know thay can't win militarily so they are counting on winning politically, here in the US, an arena where our armed forces are prohibited in engaging them in. And the strain? Excuse me? What strain? The strongest economy since the 1960s, the lowest unemployment rate we've had in my memory? And most poignantly, the lowest casualty rate we've ever had for such sustained combat operations. Don't get me wrong, I mourn the loss of each and every one of my comrades in arms--made all the more frustrating because I'm not allowed to go play in the sandbox, but we knew when we signed up that we were volunteering to engage in combat if necessary.

You then stick your head in the sand with this: "And when we find out there is no WMDs and the Al-Qaeda and Hussein connection never existed..." What the hell? What planet are you living on? Did you just miss a recent press conference where it was revealed that over 500 WMDs of the chemical variety have been recovered since 2003? And the Lord only knows how many more are on the loose? Did you miss the 1.8 TONS of enriched uranium recovered almost immediately after our forces took Baghdad? Not to mention the hugely dangerous amount and condition of conventional weapons: my EOD buds have recounted tales of securing these weapons in populated Iraqi neighborhoods that raise the hair on the back of my neck from halfway around the world!

Your next paragraph accusing the Reagan administration of supplying the Iraqis with chemical munitions is kind of a tip off, as well as your indictment of the media: You either aren't playing with a full deck, or you're dissembling. The media has made no secret of their efforts to undermine the war effort, and the US has never supplied the Iraqis with chemical weapons of any kind. Ever. So, which is it? Are you lying or just misinformed?

And you follow with: "Crucial projects to improve life in Iraq are horrendously delayed, if not abandoned." Uh, you obviously didn't read the link to Sgt Boggs interview of General Ali that I provided, so here it is again: http://www.boredsoldier.blogspot.com. To contend that quality of life projects in Iraq are delayed or abandoned is pure unmitigated poppycock. Not even the most deranged of the lefty MSM is reporting any such thing, although invdividual projects sometimes are delayed through the actions of terrorists. But as a Brookings Institute analysis of news reports about construction (note I said construction not reconstruction) in Iraq shows that consumer demand in Iraq has far outstripped the infrastructure available pre or post war even as the development of infrastructure proceeds at a phenomenal rate.

I grow weary of your dissembling, your attempt at umbrage when your "patriotism" is legitimately questioned, but I will address one last item: you say "My security issues involved eliminating the deficit, getting more Americans jobs, empowering the economy, securing our border and for foreign security, cracking down on international terroist cells, being multi-lateral in this so other countries cooperate so we don't hafta send in ground forces, occupy, just to bust up some terroist cells that really kicked in -after- we occupied that nation." There is so much that is factually incorrect in that statement that its obvious you are either the most clueless idiot on the planet, or you're lying again. The deficit? While its relatively recent that governments have run deficits, historically speaking, it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of concern: a government's deficit can only grow as large as its perceived credit will allow. Which seems to be pretty healthy in the case of the US. And getting more Americans jobs? And empowering the economy? Puhleeze! Unemployment is so low that its under what many economists have long considered the theoretical minimum employment rate. And one of the few economies growing faster than the US is, wait for it, Iraq! (Although, the US is fabulously wealthy in comparison to the rest of the world, so growth here is just gravy on top of the treasure chest. The only place you might find a higher standard of living might be a principality like Monaco, but I'd have to check to see.) And since my day job involves national security, its pretty obvious that we've made tremendous strides in: securing the borders against foreign terrorists (although I note that I and my Venezuelan in-laws disagree with this administration on how to handle illegal immigration), cracking down on international terrorist cells like one Jordanian Al-Qaeda dude named Zarqawi, recently deceased in Iraq? Assembling multinational coalitions like the 60 some odd countries with missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of our war on terror? From places as unlikely as Outer Mongolia? That kind of multilateralism? Or the cooperative effort like the SWIFT financial surveillance program that allowed many countries to identify their own terrorist threats? And to claim that terrorist cells have only recently arisen because our action in Iraq is to deny reality as effectively as claiming the Earth is Flat.

You close with "I'm doubting my ability to become a regular member of this commenting community, ..." and to be honest, I doubt it too. You are either incredibly stupid and gullible, or you're lying--either way, you won't feel too welcome among the military scholars, experienced soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who tend to inhabit places like Gunny Grinstead's blog.

One final question though, you have implicitly represented yourself as an American: but I don't think English is your first language? While that certainly wouldn't prevent you're being an American, I would be curious to know what language you think in?

"I'm not a fan of absolutely correct grammar or word usage anyways, a degree of it is needed so that we have a basis on which to understand eachother. I believe that if we all speak in our own unique styles then we avoid having acutely insipid speech patterns."

Which is why you don't boast about the excellence of your 'rhetorical style' without having the ability to demonstrate it, Carmonte. I chose one word because it was the best example of your pretentiousness, not because it was the only one.

As to the substance of what you wrote, well, it was childishly naive. Besides, the right of the exemplary servicemen who have chosen to respond to you is unquestioned from my position, and takes precedence over my civilian perspective. I allow them the fun of poking holes in your Freshman Poli Sci rambles out of my respect for their service.

Sgt Grinstead, you should run for Congress, I am sick of these liberal traitors giving our aiding and abetting the enemy, and emboldening them. I am proud of you and every marine. I served in the Air Force and I weep for every marine, sailor, airman and soldier who sacrifices his life for his country while following orders. A few bad men will never blur the image of courage of the few and the proud. Senator Murtha is a disgrace not only to the marines but as a Congressman. If we lose this war, it will not be because of the strength of the enemy, but the weak, pathetic and undermining initiatives of the liberals. They are Americas true enemy, but even as we speak, the very Marines villified by liberals like Murtha are dying and shedding their blood so that this traitors have the freedom to aid our enemies. God bless the marines and all our fellow servicemen.

I agree wholeheartedly (except for the part about me becoming a politician!)...

I'm starting to really see the kind of strength we real Americans still have. The power of our collective indignation is a formidable weapon- and the only real weapon we have. So... thanks to all of you who are being so supportive.

Saw you are FOX ... thanks for speaking out for us .. (non-military types like me ... who totally support the troops) AND most importantly THE TROOPS!!! YEAH, TROOPS ... THANK YOU SOLDIERS (all branches)!!!

jesus, you guys. listen to yourselves. we got some kinda homoerotic shit going on here that'd be great entertainment if it was just the fantasies of a bunch of lonely plastic soldiers. instead, it involves sending real live people out to get their balls blown off. get yourself a playstation, man, blow the shit outa some pixels, make you feel better.

"Actually, Anon., I do. When Sunnis and Shiites tear at each other's throats, the West is that much safer. When the Romans figured out that setting the barbarians against each other kept them from the gates (at least for a while), Rome was saved from several sackings in the short run. "

thats total ignorance. Not only because there has been unbelievable documentation that the war in iraq has HELPED THE JIHADIST RECRUIT TERRORISTS and NOT ONLY BECAUSE MANY OF THE JIHADISTS HAVE GONE BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY to export the revolution. Not only for those two reasons which is backed up by the defense department's very own defense science board but it should be common sense that those kinds of civil wars have a chances of being exported to other countries. Your belief seems to rest on the assumption that the # of shiites and sunnis that want at us is static. Furthermore, as the terrorist acts in great britan and spain showed us all the idea of fighting over there so they don't fight us here is moronic.

"I support the Administration policies in Iraq for geopolitical reasons, not for ideals. Hussein was a useful tool against the Islamofascists in Iran for a while, but when the Iran-Iraq war ended, he got a bit restive and had to be declawed and, eventually, removed. The new democratic government in Iraq will provide a much-needed island of pro-American stability in the ME, especially when nominal "allies" lie Saudi Arabia are actually working to support the very forces that we are combating. This becomes increasingly important in view of recent events in Turkey and Somalia, as well as the decline of Western European will to defend itself. "

its the geopolitical reasons that are the main reasons why you should be against this war. After the persian gulf war saddam was contained. He was not threat. Saddam not only was a bullwakr against islamist during the iran-iraq war but far after that against Al Qaida types. HE was NOT THREAT. We should only use our military against actual threats not some indirect threat percieved many years down the line.

furthermore where do you get this idea that this 'democratic government' of iraq will be pro-american? Have you seen the types of people they are electing? Have you seen the types of people that have been elected in Egypt, gaza and iran? You think 'democracy' in the ME is going to make us stable? you simply don't know your history in the ME.

"This isn't about politics, this is about giving aid and comfort to the enemy, which last time I checked was still illegal."

wait a sec. You see this is just the type of hypocritical demagoguery I am talking about. Its demagoguery because he did not give aid and comfort to the enemy. Its hypocritical because there has been far more egregious examples that come much closer to giving aid and comfort to the enemy from this administration but my guess you would not even attempt to call those giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

"You stated this so clearly, but your little troll tried to make it into Democrat and Republican. Personally, I can't stand either! There was a criminal element that I saw while I was a Marine, but that was such a tiny number of people."

please. Go back and look at his links. He clearly made this a political dem versus repub or at least liberal vs dem issue before I did.

"Sorry, Murtha's rhetoric is identical to Sheehan and Moore, and adds zero to the possibility of constructive debate. While not directly related to your points, I would note that Sheehan is not just a nut, but an absolute disgrace to the memory of her son."

Well first let me see the low mark in rhetoric is not from sheehan and moore but people like ann coulter, michael savage, rush limbaugh and those of that ilk.But please tell which specific quotes are comparable?

furthermore who are you to say that she is a disgrace to her son? I don't agree with everything she said but where do you get off saying that? do you know her son better than she did? talk about arrogance in the extreme.

"Your first substantive point appears to be that we can't win militaryily "Because we aren't fighting conventional forces," but I have to point out that history doesn't support you here. The Marine Corps history in the Pacific alone is sufficient to refute this misconception, while the British experience at Empire is another example that you misconstrue."

thats not the point I think he was making. In the pacific islads there was NOT an ever growing insurgency that we had to deal with. Did the marines fighting against the japanese have to worry about figuring out who was the good and bad guys? NO

But even more to the point in the following. You realize that the middle east and especially arab countries live in a cultural where they have been indoctinated through their media (much government funded) and mosques to hate and not trust not only america and israel but most the west.

Now based on that you tell mehow likely the insurgency can be stopped. You think the recruiting is going to stop any time soon? do you think the jihadists coming over the border through syria is going to stop anytime soon?

Also as brutal as the insurgents are (or at least th foreign ones are) they generally are arab like iraqi and that fact alone makes it a diffferent situation that that in japan.

"You go on to say "This is a much different kind of fight now." to which I have to retort, No, it isn't. As Laurie Mylroie points out in an article at the NY Sun, the Iraqi's consider this a fight against the Iraqi Baathists who were part and parcel of Saddam Hussein's regime: so in fact, the fight is against the same enemy we started with. That they are importing terrorists as substitutes for a conventional force that couldn't stand against us in the field is of little import: again it reduces to a battle of logistics."

yes and no. Some iraqis(almost all shiites and kurds) do find it a battle againt the baathist but many see it as a battle against shiite versus sunnis and/or against the occupation. Please don't delude yourself. The occupation (which I just use as a description. I mean no negative conotation with it) is helping to fuel the insurgency whether you want to admit or not. To deny that is to be in some serious denial. I will post a serious of links on this too.

"Then you say "We merely occupy Iraq and continue to receive these indirect attacks." which is a classic example of a war of attrition. What you fail to realize is that we are losing relatively little while the enemy continues to expend itself in enormous efforts that reduce them to despair, until they see what they are influential people like Murtha tell them that they are "winning."----------------------------------

You say we are losing relatively little but tell me how much room do we have to operate against iran or north korea? You don't think we are being bogged down in iraq? what you fail to realize is that the enemy has an almost unlimited # of people willing to go fight against the US in iraq. In fact I would wager they have less problems with their recruiting efforts than we do. And as far as the enemy being in despair. This is an enemy that has commited more suicide bombings than any other civil war including the one in sri lanka with the tamil tigers. That sounds like a very motivated enemy to me.

"And then this: "But apparently, we're fighting them over here, too." Well, no shit, Sherlock. As it happens, I'm no longer allowed to fight them "over there," so parts of my day job are devoted to fighting them here. We're winning here because there are a lot of people dedicated to making sure that you and the editors of the NY Times stay in one piece while making sure that our boys and girls over there have the resources that they need to beat the hell out of an enemy that sees "over there" as its home court. And we're winning on both fronts, in spite of faux patriots like you and Murtha."

This is about the most idiotic concept that comes from the right as it relates to the war in iraq. It assumes that the enemy is static and never grows. Its assumes that the war does not have any role in generating insurgents/terrorists. Furthermore it does not consider that the war itself is used to train these insurgents/terrorists into being better insurgents/terrorists. In fact there has been an article just on that by I believe the washington post (dana priest I believe).

But both spain and great britan prove that the old "we are fighting them over there so we don't fight them here" to be an absurd assertion.

"Your next three paragraphs are a refrain of "Because we're doing a shitty job in Iraq," "occupation is doing a poor job, that we are failing" and "our continued presence is not being welcomed." "

let me just say out front I generally think our soldiers are doing a good job in the hand thats been delt them. Meaning that they have been put into a damn near impossible situation and under teh circumstances they are generally doing the best they can

"And Representative Murtha, despite his service as a Marine, fell for it and is actively aiding the enemy"

thats just more but very typical nonsense coming from people like you. You probably said that kerry and max cleleand aiding the enemy right?

EW1 said"What we are facing is an ideology whose only distinguishing feature when compared to the National Socialists of 1930s Germany is that theirs is a supranational movement rather than just a national movement like Hitler's. However, in contrast to a nation-state like Germany, our enemy is eclectically funded ... by madrassas across the Middle East whose adherents are totally comitted to global conquest, and there is some clandestine funding from nation-states who are also comitted to jihad and who are under the mistaken impression that its in their strategic interest to annoy the US. But there isn't a single nation-state foolish enough to come right out and declare war (jihad) against us: they understand that they are too weak to do that, so they choose to fund proxies instead."

None of the above applied to saddam. As it relates to AQ is a tougher question. As far as AQ and bin laden goes I agree with you to a large extent but I changed my mind to some extent after reading michael scheuer's imperial hubris who is more qualified to talk about bin laden than anyone in america and is an admitted conservative republicans. If you don't know scheuer background simple google his name along with "CIA"

According to scheuer Bin Laden's policies are a direct result of about 6 policies ranging from our stance on israel to russia stance in chenya to our presence in saudia arabia. Scheuer believes that AQ would be no threat if wouldchange those policies and would not be embolden to take the offensive if we changed them.

On the other hand we certainly don't want any terrorist groups directly or indirectly dictating our foregin policy but the fact of the matter is that we have all ready. I mean we got our troops out of saudi arabia.

"You then say "Now, I know what a war of attrition is, and that's what they're fighting." but fail to understand that there is no way we can lose such a contest militarily. "Until we go Vietnam era again, ..." and "...straining the economy some, losing lives..." are exactly the perception that the enemy wants the electorate here to have: they know thay can't win militarily so they are counting on winning politically, here in the US, an arena where our armed forces are prohibited in engaging them in. And the strain? Excuse me? What strain? The strongest economy since the 1960s"

On gaad. There is no way to lose? are you kidding? what happens if the conflict spills over into other regions and countries get toppled by islamists? what happens if say pakistan gets overthrown by some of these hardcore islamist and then starts a nuclear war with pakistan? what if we are attacked INSIDE THE US again and it turns out that those that did that attacking were from iraq or at least were motivated by the war? Do you remember that suicide attack in jordan in which one of that attackers was a woman whose suicide vest failed to blowup but her husband succeded? Well they were from iraq.

Then there is the strain on the economy and the budget. There was a harvard study done about 6 months ago which put the figure (conservative figure) at around 1-2 trillion when you factor medical costs.

The strongest econmy since the 60's? Oh please. Thats pure hyperbole especially when it comes to people that are not part of the super wealthy who have benefited the most from this economy. The fact is that real wages have been down through most of the adminsitration. This is generally an economy where the working and middle class has not benefited.

"You then stick your head in the sand with this: "And when we find out there is no WMDs and the Al-Qaeda and Hussein connection never existed..." What the hell? What planet are you living on? Did you just miss a recent press conference where it was revealed that over 500 WMDs of the chemical variety have been recovered since 2003? And the Lord only knows how many more are on the loose? Did you miss the 1.8 TONS of enriched uranium recovered almost immediately after our forces took Baghdad? Not to mention the hugely dangerous amount and condition of conventional weapons: my EOD buds have recounted tales of securing these weapons in populated Iraqi neighborhoods that raise the hair on the back of my neck from halfway around the world!"

HAHAHAHA. DO you still stick with those claims? Fact is that bush's very own WMD inspector David Kaye said they were no more dangerous than the chemicals that you have under your sink. The fact of the matter is that they were pre-1991 and were not part of the WMDs they were looking for.

Was it rush or hannity or the washington times or the new york post that you got this info from?I tell you hannity sure looked the fool when he said "bush has been vindicated". Santorum will never recover from his foolishness on this.

"The media has made no secret of their efforts to undermine the war effort, and the US has never supplied the Iraqis with chemical weapons of any kind. Ever. So, which is it? Are you lying or just misinformed?"

Oh I see. So before and during the war when they were kissing the administrations ass and helping promulgate their disinformation (like judith miller of the so called 'liberal' NY times did) they were being liberal eh? So what you would really like is a media that parates the white house talking points like FOX news.

Having said I think you are right on the US not giving chemical weapons to saddam. Even scott ritter has said that but we did give him logistical support.

"The deficit? While its relatively recent that governments have run deficits, historically speaking, it certainly doesn't seem to be a matter of concern: a government's deficit can only grow as large as its perceived credit will allow. Which seems to be pretty healthy in the case of the US. And getting more Americans jobs? And empowering the economy? Puhleeze! Unemployment is so low that its under what many economists have long considered the theoretical minimum employment rate. And one of the few economies growing faster than the US is, wait for it, Iraq! "

on please. And who is to say that holding the purse strings might just say enough is enough? the idea that deficts don't matter (if that is your arg) is just a load of crap.

EW1"And getting more Americans jobs? And empowering the economy? Puhleeze! Unemployment is so low that its under what many economists have long considered the theoretical minimum employment rate. And one of the few economies growing faster than the US is, wait for it, Iraq!"

we have just spouted the typical arguments from the right. Again what kind of jobs are these? If they are well paying then how come real wages still are low or at least were low through 2005? You are not considering the cost of living. For example for the first time there is no location in the US where ANYONE can afford a one bedroom apartment on minimum wage.

Also I bet the true UR is quite a bit higher than what has been reported.

"The only place you might find a higher standard of living might be a principality like Monaco, but I'd have to check to see.) "

please provide a link with stats on real wages. You do realize that social mobility in the US is no longer what it used to be do you not? even in european countries, with the exception of great britan,there are better prospects in moving up the social ladder.

"And since my day job involves national security, its pretty obvious that we've made tremendous strides in: securing the borders against foreign terrorists (although I note that I and my Venezuelan in-laws disagree with this administration on how to handle illegal immigration), cracking down on international terrorist cells like one Jordanian Al-Qaeda dude named Zarqawi, recently deceased in Iraq? Assembling multinational coalitions like the 60 some odd countries with missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of our war on terror? From places as unlikely as Outer Mongolia? That kind of multilateralism? Or the cooperative effort like the SWIFT financial surveillance program that allowed many countries to identify their own terrorist threats? And to claim that terrorist cells have only recently arisen because our action in Iraq is to deny reality as effectively as claiming the Earth is Flat."

what a load of crap. Where to start. Pleas Name the actual coutries in iraq and the forces they have on the ground right now (don't include all the recent ones that plan to leave or did leave).Do you realize that the # of terrorist acts worldwide TRIPLED from 2003 to 2004 and 2003 was the highest year since 1982. Killing Zarq was of course good news but most of the insurgency are iraqis rather than the foreign jihadists anyway (like about 5%). There is also some indication that bin laden wanted him gone anway.

Fact is that this iraq war has helped created more terrorists than what we are killing or neutralizing them. This is not even up for debate. To deny this shows just how much in denial you are.

so you don't think there are many well respected people with military people who have been critical of this war? Tell me what do you think of the late david hackworth? will you impune his character for being critical of the iraq war? or how about those 6 generals that believed that rumsfield should retire like retired general anthony zinni? or delta force founder eric haney? Do you want to call them traitors who are giving aid and comfort to the enemy? the list goes on and on (even more so for former CIA officials) so please will people like you stop giving the misimpression that the only people who are critical of this war are far-out lefty types.

"I too am sick of this crap. First, the left is desparate to have a "war hero", as so few of them have ever worn the uniform."

thats the mentality that those who are not ravid right-wingers get sick off. Its the right that impunes the charater of people like max cleland, kerry and murtha and tried to take away their medals they got. Its the right that is filled with these chickenhawks like dick cheney who got 5 deferments but then has no problem sending others to war. But people like you have the problem with murtha not cheney. Give me a break.

you right-wingers are not any more patriotic than anyone else. GOT IT!! I'm just sick of this arrogant attitude that the right-wing displays time and time again.

furthermore no where did murtha say or even imply that those actions the marines took (if they did take them) are represenative of all marines. Hell murtha has a marine background big time.

Like i have said this is really about murtha's politics. by the way I am NOT the person using the handle Tony Carmonte. I post anonymous here but actually I all ready gave my handle on another forum (craiglist). Besides thats a stupid argument anyway since I noticed that those making that argument don't have a problem with the anons who agree with Kurt G.

Here's another one for you to play with. In fact, this one could have been written for you personally.

(Yes, everyone, I know... pearls before swine... but I can't help myself.)

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

TROLL: "its the geopolitical reasons that are the main reasons why you should be against this war. After the persian gulf war saddam was contained. He was not threat. Saddam not only was a bullwakr against islamist during the iran-iraq war but far after that against Al Qaida types. HE was NOT THREAT."

Uhhhhh....possible nukes? Sarin? Mustard gas? A tendency to invade neigbors? Although I must admit, I DID admire Saddam's willingness to give the bird to the U.N....something our Administration could learn from.

And you're right...I was wholeheartedly in favor of arming him with petrodollars to work over the mullahs in Iran, and if he hadn't got a bit above himself, I was all in favor of continuing the practice. ---------------------------------

"You realize that the middle east and especially arab countries live in a cultural where they have been indoctinated through their media (much government funded) and mosques to hate and not trust not only america and israel but most the west."

Sheesh, Anon., I thought you were describing the American(?) Left and American(?) universities, here. ---------------------------------

"Not only because there has been unbelievable documentation that the war in iraq has HELPED THE JIHADIST RECRUIT TERRORISTS and NOT ONLY BECAUSE MANY OF THE JIHADISTS HAVE GONE BACK TO THEIR HOME COUNTRY to export the revolution."

Asumming this quoted-verbatim Talking Point to be true, it makes no difference. In fact, it gives us all the more reason and moral authority to confront the Pan-Islamist movements that threaten the West...preferably with military force.---------------------------------

"Have you seen the types of people that have been elected in Egypt, gaza and iran?"

ROFLMAO...those elections were about as "free" as a Chicago mayoral election in the Daly years, or Philly during Frank Rizzo's reign of socialist terror. Who do you expect to be elected---Jeffersonian reformers? Sheesh, in Iran alone the real power is with Islamofascist mullahs, not with the "government." As my students would say, "DUH!!!"-------------------------------

"Its assumes that the war does not have any role in generating insurgents/terrorists. Furthermore it does not consider that the war itself is used to train these insurgents/terrorists into being better insurgents/terrorists. In fact there has been an article just on that by I believe the washington post (dana priest I believe)."

Again, assuming the truth of the Talking Point, it must also be considered that it hardens the resolve of moderate Muslims (if there is such a thing) and gives them a reason to ramp up their efforts to put a lid on jihadists. Of course, given the basic teachings of Muhammad, it is doubtful if they can be trusted on this point; most Muslims recognize that the mujhaddin are simply carrying out Muhammad's teachings faithfully.

The war/counterinsurgency also trains the enemies of Jihad to become better warriors, as well; hence our increased effectiveness in isolating Al Quaeda in spite of the efforts of the New York Times. For example, the Special Forces of the Philippine Army have dramatically increased their effectiveness and professionalism as a result of hunting and killing jihadists in their country.

BTW, citing the Wasington Post as a source in any intellectual argument is a fool's endeavor; their biases are well-known and well-documented.

"jesus, you guys. listen to yourselves. we got some kinda homoerotic shit going on here that'd be great entertainment if it was just the fantasies of a bunch of lonely plastic soldiers."

Hmmmm...the mention of homoeroticism as being "great entertainment," coupled (pardon the image) with your observations further down that Gunny "needs a hug" says more about your preferences than about those of the rest of the room. And your name suggests that you may prefer the "south" end during sex...

Does the image of very fit, sweating young men in BDUs do something for you, Joe? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

KMG, My son has recently agreed to, "Guard our country against all enemies foreign and domestic." I feel much better knowing there are citizens doing the same. I am proud that my son decided to serve. As I did. I am also proud to call you my friend. Semper Fi!

Okay, when I said to stop soliloquizing and get your own site... it wasn't a suggestion.

Do you understand that no one was conversing with you? You were babbling incoherently... and that is very poor manners. Again, this is not your site, so I would appreciate some basic courtesy. No one- not even your side- wants to scroll through all that stuff you poured out. No one.

Please take your childish self elsewhere, Mr. Troll, Sir. It is obvious that you have no life beyond your computer world... but this is no longer a welcome playground for you.

You might also consider medical assistance... do you often stand in a dark room and talk to yourself for hours? That is what you've been doing here.

For anyone who wants the short version of the crap I just deleted: "Bush lied, people died. Right-wingers are retarded jerks who want to kill everyone. War bad. I am too a man!"

"I'm in debt. How do I get out of it?" It's a common question these days, and a problem that's made no easier by today's economic troubles. But whatever debts an individual is facing, they're likely to have at least one debt solution available to them. Scottish Trust Deeds is similar to an IVA, but only available to residents of Scotland. In most cases, a Trust Deed will last for three years.

Hello !.You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields . There is no initial capital needed You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become richThe company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

It is based in Panama with offices everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.Do you want to become really rich in short time? That`s your chance That`s what you really need!

I`m happy and lucky, I started to take up real money with the help of this company, and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks! It`s easy to join , just click this link http://lupajaqe.freehostyou.com/obonyd.html and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to feel the smell of real money

Hi !.You may , perhaps very interested to know how one can make real money . There is no initial capital needed You may begin earning with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you haven`t ever dreamt of such a chance to become richThe company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with offices around the world.Do you want to become really rich in short time? That`s your choice That`s what you really need!

I feel good, I began to take up income with the help of this company, and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper partner utilizes your money in a right way - that`s the AimTrust!.I take now up to 2G every day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks! It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://wigazunef.virtue.nu/irywywe.html and lucky you`re! Let`s take this option together to get rid of nastiness of the life

Hello !.You re, I guess , probably curious to know how one can make real money . There is no need to invest much at first. You may begin to receive yields with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.

AimTrust is what you needAimTrust incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.

Its head office is in Panama with offices around the world.Do you want to become really rich in short time? That`s your chance That`s what you wish in the long run!

I feel good, I started to take up income with the help of this company, and I invite you to do the same. If it gets down to select a proper companion utilizes your savings in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.I make 2G daily, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks! It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://paqyxameh.the-best-free-web-hosting.com/finefawa.html and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to feel the smell of real money